Talk:Internet forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Internet forum received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Internet portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.

A This article has been rated as A-class on the class scale.

High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Largest forum ever?

what is the largest forum in the world? --Coheed56 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure there is one since they are always changing. Stealth (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not true, there is a largest forum in the world.

The largest forum(s) in the world is/are easily viewable at http://www.big-boards.com. Presently Gaia Online is the largest with a total of 1,344,909,013 posts and 12,589,038 members.

i think there is this forum on [debts] and this is pretty big with more than 111111 members. 121.247.129.72 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.129.72 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of posts on what is described as "an anime role-playing forum" (Gaia). AL (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of it could be described as spam, as players earn gold from posting and there a websites and programs that automatically create accounts and post - and companies that sell "Gaia gold" in exchange for real life money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.143.19 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator Abuse

The page lacks a section on abuse of power by moderators. Where an admin ban a user for disagreeing with them, disagreeing with another admin, disagreeing with an admin's friend, breaking a nonexistant rule, asking why the admin only enforces rules when they feel like it... This kind of thing is hardly uncommon. Anyone else think it deserves a mention? Or a redirect to where it's already discussed?ANTIcarrot (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point however this is untrue. On some (maybe even many) forums it is true, buit on more community like forums it is untrue. It is worth a mention however there needs to be a note that this is only true on 'some' forums. Stealth (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would it require a full section? Regardless, feel free to add anything you can source that strengthens the article. The current format is much more definition-focused than it ought to be. MrZaius^talk 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posts instantly seen

The last sentence in Internet_forum#Comparison_with_other_web_applications says:

Huh? Either this is poorly worded or it's wrong. Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly. Am I missing something? Since it's unreferenced I'm removing this sentence, but add it back in if I'm wrong, or it's just misworded. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean that you have to refresh the page if AJAX is not used. ffm 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be a section in which it talks about wikipedia?

I think so, because wikipedia is like a huge talking place. Although its purpose is to build an encyclopedia, there are some communication on talk pages, user pages, e-mail, and the reference desk. Yes, wikipedia is also a forum. Before wikipedia, I never chatted online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.225.102 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Besides there's enough information on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.143.19 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forum directories and rankings

My contribution at 20:50, 28 July 2008, was reverted – [1]. I think many people can come to Wikipedia, at the Internet forum article, trying to find help when they search for a forum that they need. So I think my contribution was very usefull and not in violation of any of Wikipedia's politics. If it's considered that the way I presented the information is not good, I am nicely asking for advice for how to make it better. I think the reader should be helped to see not only what a forum is, but also what forums exist out there. thanks Ark25 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "policies". The one you are refering to is WP:NOT, and wikipedia is not a collection of links elsewhere, it is not a directory. It would be acceptable to link to DMOZ, but what you added appeared to be spam. Moreover, such things belong in the "External links" section, per WP:MoS. ffm 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to the external links section, thanks for advice. Ark25 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forum directories and rankings

I can not see how a link to a forum list, sorted by the number of posts can be considered spam, especialy when the link it's placed to "external links" section. Please try to understand, that many people are coming here to find the best forum for them. And of course a list of forums, sorted by some criteria, will help them. For example, if I need a forum about digital photo, I will look on that list ([2]) and most probably, I would try first the number 36 (DP review) and not 2113 (Photo Camel) simply because a larger forum with more users can help me better to get answers for my question than a small forum. Wikipedia articles are designed to help people understand things and to help people to find the informations they need, right? If you know another list with forums sorted by number of posts and users, please add it. You removed also a link to a specific forum (added by someone else), and that is ok, but a link to a list of forums - defenately can't be spam. Ark25 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When is a forum not a forum?

I have read the guidelines to see if the following is pertinent or acceptable here and believe the statement

means that it is. I came here looking for a definition of a 'forum', as an external link I added to the American Express article was removed as being 'links normally to be avoided' which reads:

However, I see under the discussion above 'Posts instantly seen'. --jjron says 'Any forum I've ever participated in shows posts instantly.' This may have been true before the great spam explosion of 2006 but since then any forum I have been involved with, no longer posts instantly as it is too open to abuse, with automated posting every 20 seconds bombing such pages into non existence. So now the question arises, when is a forum not a forum?

Also, I have to ask the question, as I was always taught that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. The Wikipedia guidelines say 'links normally to be avoided' not 'may not be used. Surely there are cases where it is in the interest of the article?

As the proposal was that American Express is a very powerful organization with no discussion of its practices on its own website, a link to a 'forum' or a collection of users letters giving their experiences of the organization, would be a valuable contribution to the article, which seems to be very one sided. I also note that a statement made almost 4 months ago that 'Wikipedia is also a forum', with which I agree to a point, either means that Wikipedia itself is breaking its own guidelines every time anyone links to Wikipedia internally or that the link to American-express-cards.org could then be linked within the article itself rather than being relegated to an external links section? I see that the American Express article has an external link in the first paragraph. (I for some reason, was under the impression that external sites could only be in the external links section.)

As I have now read the guidelines further, it is a moot point as I cannot post the link on another of the criterion, but I do think that for the benefit of the whole and as a matter of principle, it is something which might be discussed.

The guidelines also say

I did ask for a reason why it was not a relevant link. Thank you for your explanation, Carl.bunderson, however it doesn't explain why it is not extremely relevant and why it does not add a great deal to the article itself.

I think I understand the reasoning behind the guideline to not include social networking sites such as MySpace etc, as every single page on there would no doublt end up linked from Wikipedia, however, I fail to understand why bona fide and relevent 'forums' or whatever the definition of what American-express-cards.org and others like it, is. They have to be regarded as sources of opinion on a given subject, if not a source, often, of fact. It is a fact that a number of people have felt strongly enough about the American Express service that they have taken time and effort to find a place where they can share their experiences. Is not information, living and growing, not what Wikipedia is all about? MaybeBoo (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do WikiNazi's keep deleting the section on Forum Nazism?

I wonder why. I really do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TcheQ (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we do not allow personal views (see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), and that material cannot be verified. Thus the "Forum nazis" section is deleted. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting of article

The original article[3] seemed to me too unfamiliar for the casual reader and more importantly doesn't offer much help to someone who is comepletly unfamiliar with what a forum is. Some parts also seemed to presume prior knowledge and express noticible points rather then information, description or definition.

In any case, I've tried to expan and also reorganised a large part of it. I believe I covered most of the tangible issues. The social issues I've described shortly but didn't go into any detail about the language used, slang, habits etc etc (weather more then there is should even be in this article directly is probably debatable)

I've added rudementary references, and linked when it was apropriate. I think the article is still missing heavily on examples and references to help the reader understand. (it's a lot more time consuming then a more precise and exact topic to find references -.-)

I've added a few images,

Will need to make some illustrations for some of the parts later but this should cover the main "what is forum" issues.

I'm contemplating of adding images of actual forums in action to demonstrate how flame wars or other behaviour looks, though it might be a bad idea, so I won't until I hear some more opinions on it.

I've avoided adding a slang section and mentioned mostly what are commonly used term when I found myself in context. I'm leaning towards avoiding adding any unnecesary urban dictionary lists of words, at least not directly to the article.

I've expanded the opening somewhat, and rephrased the first sentece so even someone vaguely familiar with the Internet's chit-chat systems would understand the concept. I also think the initial version was too technical. Kept it as a second sentece. The extra names I removed, I honestly can't a reference for those. For example, "fora", can't even find a use, and it being the latin plural doesn't mean it's in use for internet forums. The second part of the opening I expanded to no end later so I got rid of that. The second paragraph is tricky. Currently I've moved it under History, but I can't find any reference to suggest what is said is even remotly true. Seems to me like just random speculation just because the names are similar. That year is probably from thin air as well, judging from the way it's phrased.

I scraped all the sections in favor of reordreing to a more "what is?" order rather then a "this, that" order

For the Membership and anonymity I've removed the first paragraphs and expanded on all the ideas there later in their own section. The 3rd paragraph I see a few problems. First the first sentece, the one requiring cititions, appears to be original reserch. Secondly it goes far too out of line comparing, more then half the time it's talking about other systems other then the forum system.

The Administrators and moderators. Fist paragraph expanded, so it was scraped. The second paragraph apears to start with some original research. I don't remember ever seing a rate moderator in a forum I've been, and youtube and such, while you might consider like forums, their not exactly true forums. Wordfilter and such, is availble to moderators but it's just one of the many, and usually only goes as far as one or two simple words that in the end easily can be tricked by users. It would also be far too much information about administrators to expand to such extent. (the ideas of including information on how themes and usergroups privilages are set and work and help out, to just name a few would be too much IMHO) I've added some introductory information on what a moderator/administrator can do so the reader can get a sense what it means to be a moderator and such, but left it at that. (so the original section was pretty much scrapped in the end =/)

I turned what was features into History, since that's what it sounded to me anyway. Used features to talk about the common elements the read might try to find in a article, since it's about forums. Focused on the forum specific stuff, didn't expand much. I could of made them lists but I think this makes them much more accessible, also I internally linked everywhere I could. (still some more linking to do)

Comparison with other web applications kept as is.

Forum netiquette, expanded. Didn't keep the title since I felt it was a original term, just called it rules and policies on forums since that what people seem to always call them on forums. Expanded on the procedures and everything else, since I think the aim of the original title was to present the social order and way of thinking. (probably need to add more refs there)

Also added some more sections to cover the rest the issues. (but talking about it would probably make this post longer then the article o_O)

I've proofed read it, the wording and senteces make sense at least to me. I also spell checked it, although I'm more then sure there's at least one typo in there. I referenced wikipedia's 5 or so documents detailing style and other guidlines so it should be mostly ok, although I'm sure there are problems with it.

[my] TODO list: (feel free to help out)

7ghost (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much PhpBB3!

All screens in this sections are from phpBB3. What about other solutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.21.44 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Or in Rules and policies on forums

Vivio Testarossa seems to have marked as original search either the word or the entire example. I personally can't really tell with placement used.

If the accusation refers to the sentence itself then I don't see a real problem with it. It simply states "these are sometimes included" its not intentended as "these are always included" or "these are all included". I know the phrasing may not be the best but extending the sentece seem awkward and unecesary.

The items in the list themselvs are not citations, and really are not meant as citations for clarity reasons. Excepting the "No multiple accounts" and "Do not resurrect dead threads" all others can use the phpBB's default TOS as reference material (see 3rd paragraph). But I've avoided using such references which spin around and require too much explanation to why they are a reference. The one TOS I linked is the one from their community which is identical to the one they distribute but really not the template itself. I would really need to link to the template but theres no real way to do that; so I avoided linking at all. The real heart of the issue is that the portion questioned of WP:Or really only requires common sense, in essence it is stating something similar to "the sun is warm". The other two are almost imposible to reference properly (with outh just giving a milion examples, which would really be WP:Or). Although perhaps the first ("No multiple accounts") should really read as "No [using] multiple accounts" since that's closer to the common meaning.

I understand Vivio Testarossa point of view, but that part was just a example. The topic in question also has little to no centrelised standards or commonly accepted guidlines to go by. A example is neither fact nor a claim. Wikidias policies are also meant to be treated more as guidlines rather then a set of iron rules. I really don't see how that list and the short sentence preceding it constitutes anything but a simple example, and thus I don't see how it requires extensive reference (i.e. WP:Or) so I'll just call WP:UCS and WP:IAR on it. An alternative to using it would be to simply go to a random forum and take a screenshot of their rules.

(I've reverted Vivio Testarossa for now; also slightly altered the sentece to better illustrate neutrality)

7ghost (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] problem with sending a video

im having a problem with sending a video clip by e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.233.130 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)